> Well basically beta2 is "almost there" and I think we could start to > work in beta3 features/fixes. However I think beta3 needs to be faster > then beta2 was. Otavio, what you call "beta3" is the release candidate, IMHO. And it should be named "rc1". Given the current release schedule and the speed we use to release D-I, we only have "room" for one release only (and, indeed, a pretty small window). When I say "we", that barely means Frans and you, indeed. Both of which having other commitiments and/or priorities outside D-I. We probably can regret that but that's a fact we have to deal with. So, what we should do is starting to freeze the whole thing *now* and polish it *now*. This is the only thing that we have time and resources for. We can regret it for people who want to add neat new features to D-I but it's too late. Just take beta2 as example: we wanted to release it "very soon" after beta1 and we'll probably release it two *months* after. It means that two months is the very minimum release time....for something that doesn't change that much (well, the kernel, at least). It then proves we can't do any better timing. We even have to really hope that no blocking issue will be discovered in beta2 and rc1....otherwise, I'm pretty sure that D-I will delay the release of lenny.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature